September 23, 2020

Group Plan Affordability Levels Set for 2021

The IRS has announced the new affordability requirement test percentage that group health plans must comply with to conform to the Affordable Care Act.

Starting in 2021, the cost of self-only group plans offered to workers by employers that are required to comply with the ACA, must not exceed 9.83% of each employee’s household income.

Under the ACA, “applicable large employers (ALEs)” — that is, those with 50 or more full-time workers — are required to provide health insurance that covers 10 essential benefits and that must be considered “affordable,” meaning that the employee’s share of premiums may not exceed a certain level (currently set at 9.78%). The affordability threshold must apply to the least expensive plan that an employer offers its workers.

The threshold was increased because premiums for health coverage increased at a greater rate than national income growth during 2020.

With this in mind, if you are an ALE you should consult with us to ensure that you offer at least one plan with premium contribution levels that will satisfy the new threshold.

Failing to offer a plan that meets the affordability requirement to 95% of your full-time employees can trigger penalties of $4,060 (for 2021) per full-time employee, minus the first 30. The penalty is triggered for each employee that declines non-compliant coverage and receives subsidized coverage on a public health insurance exchange.

Since most employers don’t know their employees’ household incomes, they can use three ways to satisfy the requirement by ensuring that the premium outlay for the cheapest plan won’t exceed 9.83% of:

  • The employee’s W-2 wages, as reported in Box 1 (at the start of 2021).
  • The employee’s rate of pay, which is the hourly wage rate multiplied by 130 hours per month (at the start of 2021).
  • The individual federal poverty level, which is published by the Department of Health and Human Services in January of every year. If using this method, an employee’s premium contribution cannot be more than $104.52 per month.

Out-of-pocket maximums

The IRS also sets out-of-pocket maximum cost-sharing levels for every year. This limit covers plan deductibles, copayments and percentage-of-cost co-sharing payments. It does not cover premiums.

The new out-of-pocket limits for 2021 are as follows:

  • Self-only plans — $8,550, up from $8,150 in 2020.
  • Family plans — $17,100, up from $16,300 in 2020.
  • Health savings account-qualified self-only plans — $7,000, up from $6,900 in 2020.
  • HSA-qualified family plans — $14,000, up from $13,800 in 2020.
September 15, 2020

More Employers Ask Workers to Sign COVID-19 Waivers, But They May Not Be Legal

As lawsuits against employers continue rising amid the coronavirus pandemic, some businesses are requiring workers to sign waivers absolving them of liability and responsibility should they contract the virus.

Eight percent of executives surveyed by law firm Blank Rome said they would require that their workers sign waivers of liability before returning to the workplace.

While employers are trying to protect themselves from a liability that didn’t even exist a year ago, some human resources legal experts have expressed concerns that they may not be necessary ― and may be unenforceable.

The moves come as employers are wrestling with numerous risks that the pandemic has wrought, and with the U.S. Senate having proposed legislation that would limit the liability of employers for workers who become sick during the pandemic. A number of states have also enacted laws or emergency regulations that make it harder for employees to sue employers for negligence over COVID-19.

COVID-19-spurred employee lawsuits have mostly centered on employers not providing the proper protections for workers, discrimination or for being laid off for refusing to come to work.

Legal experts caution that employers cannot require workers to waive rights they may have, such as access to workers’ compensation benefits or the right to file a complaint with OSHA.

They also say that some employers may consider waivers as a green light to not take precautions against COVID-19, but in such cases the waivers would likely not be legal.

If a worker claims they caught COVID-19 at work and the facts back that up, they would likely have access to workers’ compensation benefits (some states even require it). But if the employer was negligent, the employee could have further legal avenues to pursue besides workers’ compensation, rights that cannot legally be waived, lawyers say.

So even if an employee were to sign a document waiving their right to file a complaint if they feel their employer is being negligent, they may still have recourse.

Requiring workers to sign waivers could present a number of legal issues, according to the law website nolo.com, including:

  • Courts in some states are reluctant to enforce liability waivers in the workplace because of the superior bargaining power of employers over their staff.
  • Workplace morale could suffer if your employees think you are placing your own economic interests above workplace safety.
  • Any waiver employees sign would not protect your firm from lawsuits filed by their families should they contract COVID-19 if staff are infected at work.
  • A waiver might be unnecessary in states that have passed laws granting immunity to employers for claims made by workers infected with the virus.

Another option

While employees who refuse to sign a waiver of their company’s liability may have grounds to challenge their employer, some liability lawyers say that employers instead of a waiver can ask their staff to sign a social contract that requires:

  • The employer to follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and take all necessary precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at work, and
  • The workers to comply with their employer’s requirements on mandates on wearing masks, social distancing and not coming to work if they have symptoms or of they think they have been exposed to someone with COVID-19. 

This type of agreement won’t protect an employer from a lawsuit, but it does spell out that they are following authorities’ recommendation for protecting employees.

While employees who refuse to sign a waiver of their company’s liability could have grounds to sue, those who sign this type of acknowledgment of new workplace rules and government guidance are less likely to be successful if they are fired for not signing. This is because the acknowledgment is not forcing them to give up any of their rights and is rather for their and their co-workers’ protection. 

These social contracts also would provide workers with a list of their responsibilities when working during the COVID-19 pandemic, and outline what their employer is doing to protect them.

September 8, 2020

Pandemic Clouds Health Insurance Cost Predictions

With large employers expecting health insurance rates to climb 5.3% in 2021, they are concerned about how the COVID-19 pandemic will affect overall health care costs in the coming years, a new survey has found.

Those expectations gleaned from the survey by the National Business Group on Health would mean average premiums and out-of-pocket spending could reach $15,500 per worker. The expected increase is on par with the average 5% annual increase that large employers have projected in the last five years.

Employers have been using different strategies to tame those costs, most notably pushing more telemedicine for their workers, a trend that has increased during the pandemic.

Additionally, employers have increased their investments in employee health and well-being programs, a trend that was largely spurred by the pandemic and employers’ understanding that their business performance is linked to the health of their workers.

The numbers going into 2021 are squishy because there has been a significant drop-off in the use of medical services in 2020 due to the pandemic. Many people have delayed non-urgent care to avoid the risk of being infected with COVID-19 if they go to the hospital.

Other people with serious conditions have also unwisely decided to forgo care out of fear of getting sick from the coronavirus.

Health care experts are not sure if that means there will be an uptick in utilization in 2021 and think the 5.3% estimate increase in costs will pan out if people continue to put off care, Conversely, if care resumes in 2021, the projected trend may prove to be too low.

Here’s what large employers are expecting:

  • Average total health care spending on premiums and out-of-pocket costs will reach $15,500 per worker in 2021, up from $14,769 this year.
  • Large employers will cover nearly 70% of costs (premiums), while employees bear the rest. That would mean the average outlay per employee would be $10,850 for the employer and $4,650 for the employee.

Trends

Employers are continuing to address health care costs by focusing on new areas that can improve health outcomes for their workers. The trends that large employers predict would continue in 2021 are:

Continued move towards telehealth services — The use of telemedicine has exploded during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the survey respondents:

  • 76% have made changes to provide better access to telehealth services.
  • 71% have boosted the types of telehealth services they offer, such as adding health coaching and emotional well-being support.
  • 80% expect virtual health will play a significant role in how care is delivered in the future. That’s compared with just 64% last year and 52% in 2018.
  • 52% will offer more virtual care options next year.
  • Nearly all will offer telehealth services for minor, acute services.
  • 91% will offer online counseling or therapy.
  • 29% may start offering virtual care for musculoskeletal issues, like physical therapy for back and joint pain.

Boosting wellness and mental health services — As many as 88% of respondents said they would provide access to online mental health support resources, such as apps, videos and articles. The survey also found that:

  • 54% are lowering or waiving costs for virtual mental health services in 2021.
  • 27% will reduce the cost of counseling services at the worksite.

Focusing on primary care — More employers are looking at advanced primary care strategies to reduce costs, with 51% saying they will have one at least one such strategy in place for 2021.

This would include contracting directly with primary care providers who can improve the delivery of preventive services, chronic-disease management, mental health and whole-person care.

Addressing high-cost drug therapies — Two-thirds of respondents said they were very concerned with the cost of new million-dollar treatments, just one of which can blow up their health cost budget.

September 1, 2020

Trump Issues Executive Orders to Reduce Drug Costs

President Trump has issued executive orders aimed at reducing the cost of medications by tying Medicare payment for outpatient drugs to international prices, passing drug-maker rebates to patients and not middlemen, and allowing individuals to import prescription medications.

Another executive order aims to force community health centers that receive 340B drug discounts to pass discounts for insulin and injectable epinephrine on to patients.

Here’s a run-down of the orders:

Drug importation

The Executive Order on Increasing Drug Importation to Lower Prices for American Patients calls for new regulations that would:

  • Allow individual state health plans to import certain drugs.
  • Authorize the reimportation of insulin products that were made in the United States and later exported, and
  • Set up a system to grant drug importation waivers for individuals to use at authorized pharmacies.

The system that Trump is proposing is reportedly modeled after new laws that took effect in Vermont in 2018, Florida in 2019 and then Colorado and Maine last year, allowing for the importation of certain prescription drugs from Canada. 

Florida’s bill directed the state’s Agency for Health Care Administration to establish a Canadian Prescription Drug Importation Program and an International Prescription Drug Importation Program.

Vermont and Florida have already submitted proposals to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to import prescription drugs from Canada, as the president in recent weeks has reiterated his intention to allow states to do so.

Federal law already grants HHS the authority to allow drug imports, as long as the department’s secretary certifies the imported drugs are safe and effective and would lower costs to U.S. consumers.

HHS and the Food and Drug Administration in early August unveiled two pathways that entities could use to import drugs.

Under one pathway, HHS and the FDA would use existing rulemaking authority to allow states, pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmacists to develop pilot programs to import drugs from Canada “that are versions of FDA-approved drugs that are manufactured consistent with the FDA approval.”

Eliminating secret deals

Another order would prohibit secret deals between drugmakers and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) middlemen, ensuring patients directly benefit from available discounts at the pharmacy counter.

The Executive Order on Lowering Prices for Patients by Eliminating Kickbacks to Middlemen would pass drug-maker rebates to patients and allow them to apply the rebate to their cost-sharing, such as deductibles in Medicare Part D plans.

The order states that any rebate rule could not be advanced unless the HHS secretary gave public confirmation that it would not raise premiums, taxpayer spending, or out-of-pocket costs. 

In particular, the proposed rule would exclude from safe-harbor protection under the anti-kickback statute price reductions that are not applied at the point-of-sale or other remuneration that drug manufacturers provide to health plan sponsors, pharmacies, or PBMs in operating the Medicare Part D program.

It would also establish new safe harbors that would allow health plan sponsors, pharmacies, and PBMs to apply discounts at the patient’s point-of-sale in order to lower the patient’s out-of-pocket costs.

This would be a significant step in getting drug-maker discounts to patients instead of the PBMs. One of the reasons pharmaceutical prices are so high is the complex mix of payers and negotiators that often separates the consumer from the manufacturer in the drug-purchasing process. 

The result is that the prices patients see at the point of sale do not reflect the prices that their insurance companies, and PBMs hired by those companies, actually pay for medicines. Instead, PBMs negotiate significant discounts off of the list prices, sometimes up to 50% of the cost of the drug, and often the Medicare patient can never enjoy that discount.

International reference pricing

Another executive order, which hasn’t yet been published publicly, would establish an international pricing index that would set the price Medicare Part B pays for the costliest medications covered under the program to the lowest price in other economically advanced countries. 

However, Trump said his administration will hold the order until Aug. 24 because he may not implement it. He said he needs to meet with pharmaceutical executives first.

Epinephrine and insulin discounts

The Executive Order on Access to Affordable Life-saving Medications would require federally qualified health centers to pass along discounts on insulin and injectable epinephrine received from drug companies to certain low-income Americans.

Only patients with low incomes; those with high cost-sharing requirements for insulin or epinephrine; those with high, unmet deductibles; and/or those without health insurance would be eligible for the discount.

What’s next

In all, Trump issued four executive orders that will require the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services to draft new regulations, which would likely not be completed by the end of the year. Regulations often take months to draft and then have to be sent out for public comment before final regs are written. 

The regulations will likely only come to fruition if Trump wins the presidency for a second term, as any regulatory initiatives in mid-stream would probably otherwise be abandoned.

August 26, 2020

Preparing for Open Enrollment During the Pandemic

With the coronavirus showing no signs of slowing, health insurance is likely top of mind for your employees. Many of them will be anxious and it’s likely that they will be more engaged and interested in understanding whether their current coverage is sufficient should they be stricken by the virus.

Not only that, but due to social distancing and with many employees working remotely, employers will need to adjust their open enrollment procedures to make sure they are safe, efficient and a success for both them and their employees.

This year in particular, it’s important that you use a multi-pronged approach that keeps everyone informed and safe.

Comprehensive and simple communications

When you are informing your staff about their benefits and open enrollment procedures, make sure you keep things simple. Don’t delve into too many details that are likely to confuse them, but explain the bigger picture and direct them to other documents and information for the detail.

When explaining the benefits and procedures, don’t get bogged down in insurance jargon. Use everyday language, charts, graphs or infographics, checklists and other tools that make absorbing the information easier.

Use many communication media

Many workplaces are multi-generational and different generations prefer different modes of communication, particularly if you have employees who are working remotely due to the pandemic

To make sure you can reach all of your workforce, blast them information using a number of media. And follow up with phone calls to remote staff that don’t respond.

E-mails and e-mail newsletters

E-mails are an excellent way to communicate important information to employees, and to gather information on what they are opening, reading and forwarding.

You can inform them about open enrollment, provide them documentation on the plan offerings and inform them of upcoming web meetings and other important enrollment information.

Web meetings

Hold webinar meetings with videoconferencing to inform your staff about their benefit choices and what, if any, changes are being made to plans going into the new year.

You should focus on the main topics:  

  • Any increases in health plan premiums,
  • Plan changes like deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, copays, and more,
  • Network changes,
  • New offerings, and
  • Resources to help your workers choose the right plan.

There will likely be many queries about COVID-19 coverage, so be prepared to answer related questions.

During these web meetings, encourage your staff to ask questions and get answers. Record the meeting for employees that are unable to make it, so they can view it on their own time.

You should require all of your staff to either participate in the actual meeting or view the meeting. Set up a virtual sign-up for them to confirm they attended and received all the information.

Offer benefit support

Not everyone is going to be able to wrap their noodle around everything you went over during the web meeting. And plan documents can sometimes be daunting and confusing to someone who is not experienced in your system or is new to the workforce. 

Additionally, some of your staff may have questions they are not comfortable asking during a group meeting and that would be more appropriately directed at a benefit counselor. This way, they can talk to someone who can guide them in choosing the right plan for them.

Don’t forget text messaging

Since most everyone has a smartphone on their person or nearby at all times these days, sending them text messages is a sure-fire way to get in front of them.

Use texting to notify staff about open enrollment dates, resources about their benefits, upcoming benefit meetings, contact resources, how to access the enrollment and benefit portal, and who to call for assistance.

Company intranet, enrollment portal

Post all of your open enrollment information on your company intranet if you have one, including links to the open enrollment portal. Every time you communicate with your staff, include the link to the open enrollment information.

This page should have all of your enrollment information, including start and end dates, links or pdfs of all plan benefit guides and plan summaries, contact information of key personal and benefit counselors, as well as all other resources they will need to choose their health plan.

The takeaway

By employing a mixture of all of the above strategies, you can conduct a safe and informative open enrollment that can help your staff choose their plan wisely and also feel comfortable about not catching COVID-19 during the process.

August 18, 2020

A Primer on Changes to 2021 Group Health Plans

While most business owners and executives have been fretting about the COVID-19 pandemic and the effects on the economy and the survival of their business, now is a good time to conduct a review of group health plans in light of changes and new rules for 2021.

Here are some of the main changes that you should consider ahead of the new year:

Out-of-pocket limits – The out-of-pocket limit amounts for 2021 are:

  • $8,550 for self-only coverage.
  • $17,100 for family coverage.

For HSA-compatible high-deductible health plans, the out-of-pocket limits for HDHPs with attached health savings accounts for 2021 are:

  • $$7,000 for self-only coverage
  • $14,000 for family coverage.

New preventative care recommendations

ACA-compliant health plans are required to cover preventative care services with no out-of-pocket costs, and new ones that become effective in 2020 and 2021 include:

  • Perinatal depression prevention.
  • HIV prevention pill for healthy people at risk.
  • Updated recommendation for prevention of BRCA 1 and 2-related cancer.
  • Updated recommendation for breast cancer: medication use to reduce risk.
  • Updated recommendation for hepatitis screening.
  • Updated recommendation for screening for unhealthy drug use in adults.

Flexible spending accounts

This year, the IRS issued a notice that increased the maximum allowable amount of unused funds at year end in FSAs that can be carried over to the next year.

The notice increases the maximum $500 carryover amount for 2020 or later years to an amount equal to 20% of the maximum health FSA salary reduction contribution for that plan year. That means the health FSA maximum carryover from a plan year starting in calendar year 2020 to a new plan year starting in calendar year 2021 is $550.

Additionally, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) allows employers to remove restrictions that funds in FSAs, health reimbursement accounts and HSAs cannot be used for over-the-counter medications.  This is not a requirement that employers relax this rule for their FSA plans, but it allows them to choose to do so.

Summary of benefits and coverage

There are new Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) materials and supporting documents that must be used for all plans that incept on or after Jan. 1, 2021.

Please remember that any changes to benefits in your group plan must be reflected in the SBC plan document and summary plan description.

The takeaway

2021 is fast approaching and with all the chaos of 2020, it would be wise to get a head start on understanding changes in store for the plans you offer. This would benefit both you and your employees.

August 12, 2020

Insurers Don’t Have to Pay for Testing Returning Workers: HHS

New guidance from the Trump administration absolves insurers of the responsibility of paying for COVID-19 tests that are required for workers who are returning to the job.

The guidance, released by the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury, means that employers will likely either have to foot the bill themselves as they screen workers during the pandemic or pass those costs on to their workers. But in states that require employers to test workers, passing testing costs on to staff is usually not an option.

There had been some confusion about who would pay for the tests after the Families First Coronavirus Response Act required insurers to cover COVID-19 tests without patient cost-sharing. The new guidance has added a new caveat to that rule: that insurers cannot require health plan enrollees to pay for the test if it is deemed “medically appropriate” by a health care provider.

“Testing conducted to screen for general workplace health and safety (such as employee “return to work” programs), for public health surveillance for SARS-CoV-2, or for any other purpose not primarily intended for individualized diagnosis or treatment of COVID-19 or another health condition, is beyond the scope of section 6001 of the [Families First Coronavirus Response Act],” the guidance states.

Resistance from advocacy groups

The guidance was met with resistance from employer and consumer groups, with the advocacy group Families USA arguing that the nation’s workers should not be saddled with additional costs during these economically uncertain times.

Employers can require employees to be tested before returning to work, but the Pacific Business Group on Health said it would be highly unusual for a large employer to require testing for employees without paying for the tests in full.

Democrats have asked the administration to withdraw the guidance, but the White House has said it won’t and that it would like to see Congress come up with a solution in its next economic stimulus package for the coronavirus pandemic.

The HHS has said that states should use the $10.25 billion that lawmakers appropriated for testing to help pay for tests of returning workers.

Insurance companies may opt to pay for such tests anyway, as a precautionary measure. America’s Health Insurance Plans, however, is calling on more government support to cover the costs, which it says could be between $6 billion and $25 billion annually.

July 28, 2020

Alternative Group Plan Funding Gets a Second Look

Watching their group health plan premiums climb higher with each passing year, some employers start looking into alternative funding strategies in hopes they can get a better handle on their employees’ health costs.

While group plans are the standard, larger employers have typically had more options for funding their group health coverage. But now even small and medium-sized employers – even companies with fewer than 100 employees – can benefit from alternative funding approaches.

There are three main types of alternative funding strategies that are available to employers:

  • Captives
  • Private exchanges
  • Full and partial self-funding.

Captives

With a captive, multiple employers pool their resources and share the risk in providing health insurance to their employees. It is essentially a self-insured pool built into a captive insurance company (an insurer that is owned by the entity that created it). The captive has staff that will administer the health plan.

Captives are also multi-year agreements, so once an employer commits to make it worth their investment, they need to stick with it for a period of time.

Group captives will often have a specific funding mechanism that is broken down into four layers:

Layer 1: The employer is responsible for the first $25,000 of any claim made by one of its employees.

Layer 2: All employers involved in the captive will share the costs of that claim if it exceeds $25,000, up to $250,000.

Layer 3: For claims that cost more than $250,000, the captive will secure reinsurance coverage to cover amounts above that level. This reinsurance is also called “stop-loss” insurance.

Layer 4: Another layer of protection known as “aggregate stop-loss” coverage protects each employer in the captive for the total claims of their employees, ranging from 115% to 125% of expected claim costs in a year.

Private exchanges

Typically, businesses using a private exchange will offer employees a credit that can be applied toward the purchase of a health plan. Employees can then access a variety of health plans through an online portal and can chose and enroll in plans that meet their needs.

Private exchanges are run by insurance carriers or consultancies, and plans on the exchange are regulated as group coverage. Employees shopping on these exchanges are not eligible for the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies.

Most employers currently using private exchanges are large; therefore, most private exchange plans are regulated as large-group coverage and are not part of the ACA’s single risk pool. However, to the extent that smaller employers participate in private exchanges, they are subject to the ACA’s small-group rating regulations and risk-pool requirements.

One of the main features of private exchanges is that they enable employees to comparison-shop among multiple health insurance plans.

Self-insuring

There are many different types of self-insurance, from minimum-premium or risk-sharing arrangements to a fully self-funded plan, in which the employer is responsible for all claims.

Employers can choose from:

Retrospective premium arrangements – The insurer will credit back a portion of the unused premium to the employer (typically as a credit for the following year). This is often used in a fully insured arrangement.

Minimum premium arrangements – The employer pays fixed costs (administration charges, stop-loss insurance and network access fees) and claim costs up to a maximum liability each month.

Partial self-funding -The employer takes on more liability and pays fixed costs (administration, network access, stop-loss premiums and some fees and taxes). It’s partial self-funding because the employer will purchase individual stop-loss insurance, which caps the employer’s liability on any given claim to a certain amount, say $50,000.

That way, the employer is self-insuring most of their employees’ medical needs, but is protected in case some of those claims become catastrophic.

Full self-funding – This is like partial self-funding except that there is no stop-loss insurance and the employer is responsible for all costs that are not shared by its employees.  This kind of arrangement is usually only available to large employers.

The takeaway

These alternative funding approaches are what is available now. But the industry is innovating to making health care and insurance more affordable for all involved.

July 21, 2020

Protecting Your Firm from Employee Benefit Lawsuits

Employment practices and employee benefit-related lawsuits are on the rise – and employers have to be eternally vigilant when it comes to meeting their compliance obligations as plan sponsors.

Take the case of Visteon, a global automotive industry supplier, which outsourced its payroll and enrollment/disenrollment functions to outside plan administrators. 

But because of internal mistakes at the firms that Visteon outsourced these noncore HR functions to, some of its former employees who should have received COBRA eligibility notices after leaving the firm never received them. At first it was just a handful, but ultimately 741 co-workers signed on to a class-action lawsuit

Visteon argued in court that it was not its own mistakes that had caused the error, and that it had made a good-faith effort to hire outside experts to take over this function for them. Payroll and enrollment, after all, are not core competencies for an auto parts supplier, the company said, and it had been relying on the expertise of these other payroll companies to properly execute these functions and provide these notices.

The court didn’t buy Visteon’s argument. Rather, it held the company responsible in 2013 for poor internal tracking systems, negligence in overseeing its third party administrators, and failure to accept responsibility for its COBRA notification efforts.

That exposed them to the statutory penalty of $110 per worker per day for failure to provide notification.

In the end, for doing what tens of thousands of employers are doing nationwide – relying on third party administrators to handle payroll functions that are regulated under COBRA – Visteon was slapped with $1.8 million in penalties.

Employers are frequent lawsuit targets

As much as companies rely on their employees to generate profits, simply having them around and administering their benefit plans potentially exposes employers to significant possible liability.

According to a survey from insurer CNA, employment-related disputes are the fastest-growing category of civil lawsuits in America.

Employers face risk from the potential of lawsuits employees may bring for alleged failure to fulfill their fiduciary duties as sponsors of retirement plans under ERISA, for example, or for accidental or unauthorized leaks of personally identifiable information, which carries significant penalties under HIPAA.

Sponsors of defined contribution pension plans, such as 401(k)s, are particularly frequent targets of lawsuits for various fiduciary failures, errors or omissions.

Protecting your firm from legal action

So how can employers protect themselves against the potential costs of employee benefit-related litigation? You should:

  • Carefully monitor your plan third party administrators. Insist that they document their own compliance practices to you. Don’t take their word for it.
  • Reconcile your own lists of recently departed employees with your payroll company’s COBRA notifications.
  • Understand that your commercial general liability insurance policy usually will not cover you against liability arising from improper administration of employee benefit plans, ERISA, COBRA, USERRA, wage and hour laws, Title VII related lawsuits, and the like.
  • Consider employment practices liability insurance. This coverage will often protect against lawsuits like this and cover legal expenses, and even judgments.
  • Conduct regular reviews with advisers of investments in pension and 401(k) plans. Investments should be reviewed at least annually – and quarterly is not unusual.
  • Ensure that fees paid to 401(k) and other plan administrators are not excessive. You don’t have to go with the cheapest provider (that can be trouble, too). But if you do choose a higher-fee vendor, document why you made that decision so that you can show your reasoning in court and defend your decision-making as sound and prudent.
  • Invest in data security and HR compliance expertise.
July 14, 2020

Testing Workers for COVID-19 Raises Privacy, Discrimination Issues

Employers whose businesses continue to operate are obviously concerned about the coronavirus spreading through their worksites, so many have started testing their workers.

Recent U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance authorized employers to conduct COVID-19 testing and check temperatures of employees. But doing so could expose a business to a number of employee legal actions from invasion of privacy to discrimination and wage and hour charges, say employment law attorneys.

While the EEOC guidance refers to existing Americans with Disabilities Act regulations requiring that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity,” it left many questions unanswered.

So, if you decide to start testing workers, you will have to navigate a number of issues, such as:

  • Which tests are appropriate?
  • What are the standards for protecting workers’ privacy?
  • Should employees be paid for the time they wait in line to be tested?
  • Should you get written consent?
  • How will you ensure that the policy is applied consistently?

Employment law experts say there is often a surge in employee lawsuits when new rules or guidance are being issued, and more so with such a sensitive issue as one’s health during a pandemic. 

 The kinds of claims that employers may see as a result of employee testing include:

  • Invasion of privacy
  • Failure to protect employees’ personal health information
  • Discrimination
  • Retaliation
  • Wage and hour actions if waiting for testing takes time.

What you can do

Typically, employers would not be allowed to test a worker’s temperature for a specific disease, but these are unusual times and the threat of infection is too great.

Most lawyers are interpreting the EEOC guidance as meaning that employers may take steps to determine whether employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the coronavirus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Therefore, an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before they enter the workplace to determine if they have the virus. 

To cover your bases, you should plan your testing in detail, including:

  • How you will be conducting tests (providing at-home test swab kits, testing upon arrival, or offsite).
  • Designate a person who is authorized to conduct tests.
  • Document how you will be administering tests.
  • Plan for how you will account for false positives or false negatives.
  • Decide how often should you be testing.
  • Budget for the testing.
  • What will you do if a worker tests positive or has a fever (if you are just checking temperatures)?
  • Don’t have exceptions to the policy or, if you do, keep them to a minimum. The more exceptions to a policy, the more likely you are to be sued.
  • The policy should comply with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, such as using non-contact thermometers and ensuring social distancing during the process.

Insurance

The risk of being sued when administering testing is real and you should do everything you can to make sure it’s carried out fairly and consistently. But even if you do everything by the book, you can still be sued.

During bad economic times when people are losing their jobs, employee lawsuits tend to rise and, even if you are eventually found to have acted within the confines of the law, you still have to pay the legal fees.

One type of policy that could step in to protect you is employment practices liability insurance. EPLI will cover awards and legal costs in employee-initiated lawsuits. Each policy is different though, so it’s best to consult with us first.

If you are testing or are considering testing your staff, you may want to consider it.